Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matto on May 03, 2013, 02:15:06 PM
-
John Lane against the resistance (http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1433&sid=023cc28babe410e46a70ac200c63ab49)
John Lane is a sedevacantist, though I think he attends Mass at an SSPX chapel.
-
John Lane against the resistance (http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1433&sid=023cc28babe410e46a70ac200c63ab49)
John Lane is a sedevacantist, though I think he attends Mass at an SSPX chapel.
John Lane is a nobody. The sede who defends Bishop Fellay with his doctrinal preamble.
It's a joke!
-
I disagree with John Lane but I think that running his sedevacantist forum makes him a somebody in the world of traditional Catholicism just like running Cathinfo makes Matthew a somebody. I was surprised to hear him being against the resistance because I thought most sedevacantists supported the resistance.
-
I disagree with John Lane but I think that running his sedevacantist forum makes him a somebody in the world of traditional Catholicism just like running Cathinfo makes Matthew a somebody. I was surprised to hear him being against the resistance because I thought most sedevacantists supported the resistance.
A sede who defends Bishop Fellay.
It is as absurd as speaking of a "legitimately promulgated" bastard rite.
Given that Bishop Fellay has tried to put the SSPX in a hopeless position vis a vis Rome, and that John Lane believes Rome is not the Church, how is it possible that John Lane attacks the resistance to Bishop Fellay for not accepting this state of affairs?
It shows either a lack of intelligence or a lack of character.
-
I agree that John Lane's position is very strange. That is one of the reasons I linked to his post.
I found it surprising and also interesting to see a sedevacantist who supported Bishop Fellay over the resistance.
-
I believe that Lane has a son who is a SSPX priest...therefore causing his evident confusion and hypocritical stance.
I thought it was John McFarland whose son was an SSPX priest?
-
I believe that Lane has a son who is a SSPX priest...therefore causing his evident confusion and hypocritical stance.
I thought it was John McFarland whose son was an SSPX priest?
Yes...I think you're right, never mind what I wrote everyone.
Is McFarland a sede? Speaking of evident confusion!
-
Is McFarland a sede?
He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.
By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.
-
Is McFarland a sede?
He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.
By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.
Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!
I remember getting into trouble on IA after confusing the two Johns...They're both disagreeable for the most part...
-
Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!
Thank you, I appreciate it. I always like reading yours as well. :)
God Bless.
-
John Lane's statement that the Archbishop says in the same interview he was willing to join the conciliar Church is not supported by the quote he gives.
"Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are."
This is not equal to saying that the Archbishop wishes to join the conciliar Church.
In fact, it says the opposite. Entering "the conciliar church" is accepting the Council. The "conciliar Church" is not the Church - but the neo-SSPX now says that it is! Incredible.
It is idiocy for John Lane to say
"because we know that the Archbishop in the very same interview stated very clearly that he had no problem "entering the conciliar church"
That is a blatant falsehood!
There NEVER was a "no-strings" agreement on the table.
A "no-strings" agreement is not possible, barring the conversion of Rome. Even then, could it really be "no-strings"
Bishop Fellay was never expecting a "no-strings" agreement, and those who speak of one are dishonest.
The Archbishop repudiated the agreement and he explained why.
Therefore, is it necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, obviously.
The whole book of Mr. Madiran "The Heresy of the Twentieth Century" is the story of the heresy of the bishops.
It is therefore necessary to leave the bishops’ environment, if you do not want to lose the soul.
But that's not enough, as it is in Rome where the heresy is settled. If the bishops are heretics (even without taking this term in his canonical sense and consequences) is not without the influence of Rome.
If we move away from these people, is quite the same way as people with AIDS. There is no desire to catch it. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, infectious diseases. If you want to save your health, you need not to go with them.
http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/the-visibility-of-the-church-archbishop-lefebvre-s-conference-to-
The defenders of Bishop Fellay can only excuse what he does by deliberately misconstruing what it says.
The neo-SSPX is infected with the disease the Archbishop was talking about.
-
Just to repeat:
The Archbishop did not in that interview say that he was willing to enter the "conciliar Church"
John Lane, the "sedevacantist" - is a purveyor of falsehoods - one being that the Archbishop was willing to enter the "conciliar Church"
This is truly bizarre position for a sedevacantist to take.
-
Is McFarland a sede?
He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.
By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.
Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!
I remember getting into trouble on IA after confusing the two Johns...They're both disagreeable for the most part...
But he really has a nice accent. John Lane, that is. :cowboy: :guitar: :detective:
-
I know people who left the resistance and became SV's because they don't like Fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life.
-
I know people who left the resistance and became SV's because they don't like Fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life.
Could you please write more about fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life?
Thanks.
-
I know people who left the resistance and became SV's because they don't like Fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life.
Could you please write more about fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life?
Thanks.
Horjusz,
I answered you privately. But just to go on record here in the forum Fr. Pfeiffer staunchly upholds all TRADITIONAL teachings on marriage and family. That includes not limiting family size and wifely submission to husband. Some people don't like that.
-
John Doe who?
-
So, what's not to like? How would that cause someone to become a SV?
-
So, what's not to like? How would that cause someone to become a SV?
Some SV groups seem to have enthusiasm for NFP.
And the SSPX is gradually shifting its position on this issue.
-
Some SV groups seem to have enthusiasm for NFP.
Can you name any?
And the SSPX is gradually shifting its position on this issue.
Any evidence for this?
-
Can you name any?
SGG
Natural Family Planning: On Recent Condemnations of NFP Rev. Anthony Cekada NOTE: In Fall, 1998 the “Voice Crying in the Wilderness” newsletter, a widely-circulated traditionalist periodical, published an article condemning Natural Family Planning (NFP).The following is a letter to the Editor, written by Father Anthony Cekada. In addition to offering the traditional Latin Mass in Cincinnati and Columbus, Father Cekada is professor of canon law and pastoral theology at Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Warren, Michigan. To the Editor: This afternoon I spoke with a parishioner who was very upset over your article on Natural Family Planning (NFP). I had to assure her (as I will probably have to assure others) that your comments were —and there is no diplomatic way to put this — presumptuous, ignorant and dangerous. First, you have no business even offering an opinion on the morality of NFP, still less condemning it as sinful in a publication that you send out to tens of thousands of people. One may indeed (as you do in other articles) catalogue, dissect and condemn the Modernists’ doctrinal errors, since so many of them are obvious and have already been condemned. But the morality of NFP is an issue for moral theology — the branch of theology which analyzes right and wrong, virtue and sin. The subject matter of moral theology is vast and enormously complex, covering all the general principles of morality and all their particular applications. In the seminary moral theology is one of the major courses. It requires three or four years’ worth of classes conducted several times a week to cover all the material. Despite the length of this course, it can only impart to the priest-to-be the mere “basics” for the confessional and counselling. Priests who wrote on moral issues before Vatican II — and it was only priests who were permitted to become moral theologians — always had advanced degrees. Their books were carefully checked by their religious superiors and diocesan censors. If moral theologians did any speculative writing, it never appeared in popular publications such as yours. You have no training in, and no experience dealing with, a complex moral question like NFP. We traditional Catholic priests have studied moral theology and we apply it in the confessional and in counselling. Leave such matters to us — and leave our people alone. Second, although moral theology manuals emphasize that NFP is not a topic one should discuss in sermons or mass-circulation publications, The Angelus, The Remnant, and your own publication have spread some dangerous errors on the issue, and it is necessary that someone correct them, lest Catholics wrongly conclude they are committing mortal sin. The moral aspect of NFP and periodic continence may be summed up as follows: 1. General Principles. Spouses are free to choose whatever time they want to exercise their marriage right or abstain from exercising their marriage right by mutual consent. Conversely, they are not obliged to exercise their right during fertile periods, or abstain during sterile periods. Deliberately to limit marital relations to sterile periods to avoid conception is morally lawful in actual practice, provided the requisite conditions are met. Family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault. Periodic continence is morally permissible because it fulfills the other ends of marriage (mutual love and fidelity, alleviation of concupiscence) and because it does not physically hinder the natural processes of conception. 2. Requisite Conditions. Mutual consent or willingness of the spouses. Ability properly to observe periodic continence without danger of sin. Sufficient justification or cause, just and grave, either medical, eugenic, economic, or social, which justifications are outlined by various theologians. 3. Gravity of the Various Obligations. The issues involved with NFP were not fully discussed by pre-Vatican II theologians. The gravity of an obligation (if any) to exercise the marriage right during fertile periods was not clearly established. Neither was the gravity of the unjustifiable use of periodic abstinence. Do not presume that the defection of the post-Vatican II hierarchy gives you the right to settle all this, and then tell Catholic couples they are committing sin. Your article was ill-advised and very harmful. I suggest you issue a retraction and an apology to your readers. — The Rev. Anthony Cekada (September 1998) Free Info PacketWe can send you a free packet containing information about the traditional Mass, the Vatican II changes and the traditionalist movement.
Contact: St. Gertrude the Great Church, 4900 Rialto Road, West Chester OH 45069, 513.645.4212, www.sgg.org
Any evidence for this?
Father Chazal has mentioned this in sermons. Many "trad" families are smaller and larger families were being scorned by other parishioners. When this was discussed with the priests they were told that quality, not quantity was what was needed.
Anyway, it stands to reason. Liberalization is occurring. It amazes me that people think that liberalizers are only interested in superficial issues. Ultimately, nothing is sacred to the liberalizers. The people in Vat II will have to face that eventually. When my parents generation has passed away, or sooner.
-
Thank you, Telesphorus, for taking the trouble to post this.
-
Is McFarland a sede?
He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.
By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.
Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!
I remember getting into trouble on IA after confusing the two Johns...They're both disagreeable for the most part...
But he really has a nice accent. John Lane, that is. :cowboy: :guitar: :detective:
A nice accent does not a good traditional Catholic man make!!
-
The above is an extract taken from an interview given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Fideliter magazine and published in its July/August 1989 issue. Note how the Archbishop makes it clear that to think we could enter the conciliar church in order to make it Catholic is a complete illusion.
Well, this writer says that the Archbishop "makes it clear" but in fact there's ambiguity there, because we know that the Archbishop in the very same interview stated very clearly that he had no problem "entering the conciliar church" if that meant being given canonical recognition without compromise, but that what he would not do was enter into any kind of arrangement whereby the Fraternity would be able to be crushed. He said, "Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are." In other words, if JP2 had been prepared to recognize the SSPX as it is, Archbishop Lefebvre would willingly have kept to the Protocol he had already signed. He'd have "entered the conciliar church".
John, the words of the Archbishop you quoted were written on June 2, 1988; however, this interview happened a year later. The Archbishop's position strengthened as he approached his death to the point of saying that he would not pursue further talks until Rome's conversion. Furthermore, I am not as convinced as you are that what the Archbishop wrote to Pope John Paul II in that letter (that is, "as we are") meant the same thing Bishop Fellay meant when he used these same words during his sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas seminary on February 2, 2012. Clearly the Archbishop was adamantly fighting for a bishop for Tradition. Bishop Fellay was not. Being accepted "as we are" would not have necessarily achieved the consecration of a bishop for the Archbishop. Nevertheless, if you read my article more closely, I was not arguing that the Archbishop refused to deal with Rome until her conversion; rather, my precise point was that superiors make the subjects and not the other way around. Bishop Fellay is under the illusion that he can go into Rome and convert them from the inside. As a matter of fact, his doctrinal slide actually shows that Rome can get to him while he is on the outside!
I suggest that this writer has a look at who the "Resistance" priests are (that is, the few who were actually members of the SSPX to begin with, unlike Fr. Voigt [Novus-ordained as he was] and Fr. Ringrose [independent]), and takes note of their relationships with one Bishop Williamson. They are what their leader has made them.
Thank you, John, for providing even more evidence to sustain my point.
In regards to your other attacks, I am not really interested in arguing too much with those who have caught menzingenitis. Only prayer is left for such cases.
-
:sleep: :sleep:
-
John Lane against the resistance (http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1433&sid=023cc28babe410e46a70ac200c63ab49)
John Lane is a sedevacantist, though I think he attends Mass at an SSPX chapel.
John Lane is a nobody. The sede who defends Bishop Fellay with his doctrinal preamble.
It's a joke!
I disagree with John Lane but I think that running his sedevacantist forum makes him a somebody in the world of traditional Catholicism just like running Cathinfo makes Matthew a somebody.
Tele: I agree.
Matto: I suppose so, technically.
But his forum is an order of magnitude smaller than CathInfo or Ignis Ardens, (and downright microscopic next to Fisheaters) regardless of what metric you look at.
I checked out his forum, and he only has 354 users. CathInfo has had that many members join in the last 5 months alone. (NOTE: CathInfo did a major purge of inactive members to optimize the database. About 1500 older accounts were deleted) I wonder how many of his members are active.
Which leads me to my next point...
The real metric for a forum is TRAFFIC or ACTIVITY. Looking at his main sub-forum, he only gets 1 post a day, sometimes every other day -- and often that lonely poster is the member known as "John Lane". Even the Sedes don't frequent his forum!
Have you heard the expression, "Gotta be doing something right?" Well, John Lane has "gotta be doing something WRONG" based on how his forum is doing. He's simply not getting that much attention or traffic -- at least not on his own forum. If his name is known, it's because of his posts on other fora, and other people mentioning him on those same fora.
I believe that his decision to shut down his forum for years didn't do it any favors.
But his supporting Bishop Fellay and the sellout certainly explains a lot!
-
I've been here only a short time but I really like this forum. I'm a sede, but I respect the opinions of those who aren't, and I haven't had anyone here bash me for my beliefs regarding The Crisis. I actually tried to join John Lane's forum before I knew anything about CathInfo, but I have yet to receive a response activating my membership on his forum. Regardless, I feel more at home here, so I won't be posting on his forum even if I do receive a response eventually. As for Mr. Lane's position regarding Bp. Fellay, all I can say is: :confused1:
-
Is McFarland a sede?
He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.
By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.
Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!
I remember getting into trouble on IA after confusing the two Johns...They're both disagreeable for the most part...
But he really has a nice accent. John Lane, that is. :cowboy: :guitar: :detective:
A nice accent does not a good traditional Catholic man make!!
Who gave me a thumbs down? Someone with an accent?
-
Matthew, part of the reason that John Lane's forum has so few users is that users are personally screened before being allowed membership.
I don't mean "send me an email to prove you're not a bot" but "send me an email to prove you're a traditional Catholic and why you want to use this forum." Since most people just read the forum and don't even post, I'm not surprised that the number is so few as you can do all the reading you want without having to type up a trad resume.
He's set up a forum for very serious discussion on basically one topic, so it makes sense to have that kind of screening process. It works for what he's doing. I think his reader base is much larger than the number of users suggest. Though what you said is still true, it's scope does not approach any of the other forums.
-
Is it because John Lane sits at the feet of Fr Edward Black, until recently the Superior of the SSPX in Australia? Black is that remarkable old-style priest from the Old Country. However, he himself is now "old" (63) and too tired (puff, puff!) to grasp at thorny issues. Hence he won't take on Fellay. Hence Lane is with Fellay.
-
Post #23 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24381&min=20#p3):
...
I am not really interested in arguing too much with those who have caught menzingenitis. Only prayer is left for such cases.
Menzingenitis ---------- excellent word!!
How about this: infectious menzingenitis.. contagious menzingenitis..
purulent pernicious menzingenitis
atrocious menzingenitis
abominable menzingenitis
horrific menzingenitis
despicable menzingenitis
the international plague of menzingenitis
unclean menzingenitis
repulsive menzingenitis
ghastly menzingenitis
It's too bad we have to start sounding like Jew hacks to make the point stick.
One thing ALL the saints have in common is a horror of sin.
A sinful thing must be perceived for the ugliness and repulsiveness that it is.
The devil's principle work is to make sin appear to be tolerable, appealing,
even good -- but that is his primary work of deception: evil under the
appearance of good.
-
John Lane against the resistance (http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1433&sid=023cc28babe410e46a70ac200c63ab49)
John Lane is a sedevacantist, though I think he attends Mass at an SSPX chapel.
Never heard of him. What are his credentials? The guy that ran Angelqueen forum had a huge following, membership, forum. He couldn't spell Colombia.
-
Matthew, part of the reason that John Lane's forum has so few users is that users are personally screened before being allowed membership.
I don't mean "send me an email to prove you're not a bot" but "send me an email to prove you're a traditional Catholic and why you want to use this forum." Since most people just read the forum and don't even post, I'm not surprised that the number is so few as you can do all the reading you want without having to type up a trad resume.
He's set up a forum for very serious discussion on basically one topic, so it makes sense to have that kind of screening process. It works for what he's doing. I think his reader base is much larger than the number of users suggest. Though what you said is still true, it's scope does not approach any of the other forums.
Plus, a sedevacantist forum isn't likely to attract as many members as an SSPX or Resistance forum.
-
Plus, a sedevacantist forum isn't likely to attract as many members as an SSPX or Resistance forum.
You mean a pro-Fellay sedevacantist forum is unlikely to attract as many members.
There are plenty of sedes out there.
-
Plus, a sedevacantist forum isn't likely to attract as many members as an SSPX or Resistance forum.
You mean a pro-Fellay sedevacantist forum is unlikely to attract as many members.
There are plenty of sedes out there.
Yes, thank you for the correction.
-
It used to be the Protestants against the Catholic Church. We didn't know
how simple we had it then.
Now it's the John Lane Sedes against the Resistance.
So the Prots are yesterday's news, "Old Hat," and the new frontier is
an attack against the Resistance, which by definition, holds the same as
what the Catholic Church held when the Prots were attacking it.
We have been telling NovusOrdoCatholics "We are what you were. If you
were right then, we are right now." So the SedeLanes are telling the
Protestants, "We are what you were. If you were 'right' then, we are
'right' now." The SedeLanes are picking up where Fellay is leaving Prots
off!!
If he keeps this up, +Fellay might be able to make it look like he can bring
the Sedes "back" too - after all, Lane and his ilk are in favor of +Fellay
and opposed to the Resistance - so then Rome can see the only 'enemy'
left is the tiny fragment of Resistance.
Isn't it telling how important the Resistance is, when its tiny size is nonetheless
not negotiable with Rome? It's the only "freedom of religion" that Vat.II does
not defend, and we know this because it's the only "freedom of religion" that
conciliar Rome continues to punish.
The proof is in the punishment.
But that's nothing new. It was the same for the Roman martyrs. The proof
was that they had to die for the Faith.
-
I thought it would help to complete the assessment of John Lane's articles that are being brought up on various threads if readers knew that John attends SSPX Masses. He is on friendly terms with the Societys priests, and vice versa. He interviewed Bishop Fellay for two hours in his own home, and then asked BF if he could now defend the latter on Ignis Arden.
-
Pro Fellay sede-vacantists...now I've heard everything...." I think there's no Pope and all the Conciliar popes are heretics...but I really like the SSPX Sup gen who is tossing dogmatic principles aside to snuggle up to them..and his Zionist lawyer/investment partner? The harasser of Bp Williamson? Nothing to see there...move along.."
-
John Lane has been very critical of Bishop Fellay. However, he also notes that there isn't a deal nor is there likely to be a deal anytime soon. That is simply a fact. He is critical of the Resistance because, he says, they argue against something that hasn't happened and is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The problem, Mr. Lane has said, is that the SSPX, whether it be the Menzingen group or the Resistance group, absolutely rejects sedevacantism as even a possibility and considers the Conciliar papal claimant to truly be the pope. There will always be a possibility, on the part of any of them, of some sort of reconciliation as long as they fundamentally reject the possibility that the sedevacantist theory may be correct.
I, personally, do not argue for the Resistance or against the Resistance. I really do not have a dog in the fight. I do not regularly attend an SSPX chapel. However, if I were traveling and the only chapel available were SSPX, whether it was a Menzingen chapel or a Resistance chapel, I would have little concern about assisting at Mass unless I were certain that the priest was not one who had been ordained by the SSPX.
Rather than discuss Mr. Lane's views on CathInfo, it would seem more appropriate for members to join the St. Bellarmine Forum and discuss them there though he will not allow statement unsupported by facts and evidence to be posted. But those interested can actually read Mr. Lane's discussions of the Resistance issues in the "SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre" sub-forum that he established last year when the controversy was beginning to brew.
-
The latest post by Mr. Lane about this issue:
I suspect that part of the problem is the political character they have given it. One effect of this is that there is no sophistication or subtlety to the discussion. It's all "two legs bad, four legs good" nonsense.
It's quite possible to believe that Bishop Fellay is a wonderful man, yet he is not Archbishop Lefebvre. It's quite possible to remain perfectly loyal to him and not fear for the future, without thinking that he has done everything perfectly or that he will always do everything perfectly in future. I know priests who have such views. And they detest the "Resistance."
But it's part of the Resistance campaign to divide the world into "Accordistas" and good guys. Accordistas are, contrary to the meaning of the word itself, not people in favour of a deal but rather they are merely people who refuse to join in the calumny and detraction. I'm a sedevacantist, so more against a deal than any "Resister" could possibly be, yet they call me an Accordista. And these people claim to love the truth? It's hard to see any religion in any of this, it's too obviously political.
As I noted above, he's not in favor of a deal. He simply is unwilling to throw Bishop Fellay under the bus. He doesn't worship the ground Bishop Fellay walks upon. He does not think Bishop Fellay has been the greatest leader since the Archbishop.
-
Mr. Lane was a member of both CathInfo and Ignis Ardens. Many of us are completely aware of his views regarding +Fellay and the current state of the SSPX. Please discontinue to bring him here; if we so desire, we can visit his forum and read his posts.
-
The latest post by Mr. Lane about this issue:
.... not people in favour of a deal ... I'm a sedevacantist, so more against a deal than any "Resister" could possibly be, ...
As I noted above, he's not in favor of a deal. .....
I have not been following this in detail, but I am getting the impression that part of the problem is he is another who only focuses on deal or no deal. But to me the much more important facet of the Resistance is the liberal slide of the SSPX. It is true, "Accordista" is not a perfect term (again in part because it focuses only on a deal - not the main problem), but I think people have been using that term for lack of a better one.
-
It is true, "Accordista" is not a perfect term (again in part because it focuses only on a deal - not the main problem), but I think people have been using that term for lack of a better one.
An agreement with Rome is not the main problem at all.
-
However, he also notes that there isn't a deal nor is there likely to be a deal anytime soon. That is simply a fact. He is critical of the Resistance because, he says, they argue against something that hasn't happened and is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
'Cassini' assured Irish folk there will be no deal. Many are happy to accept Bishop Fellay and have no reason to doubt him.
If Irish folk supported a man, who aligned his movement to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, they are hardly going to be outraged regarding Dr Krah.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/snmhmhqlid/
Party U-turn as Ganley backs Jєωιѕн group
By Paul O’Brien Political Correspondent - Thursday, June 04, 2009
LIBERTAS performed an astonishing U-turn last night after earlier claiming that a leading Jєωιѕн human rights organisation was "beneath contempt".
Less than two hours after Libertas candidate Caroline Simons branded the Simon Wiesenthal Centre as "willing idiots", Libertas founder Declan Ganley said his organisation was joining with the centre to "actively fight racism and anti-Semitism".
The embarrassing U-turn overshadowed Libertas’s final press event of the European election campaign.
The contradictory statements were issued after the centre, which fights anti-Semitism across the world, raised questions about some of Libertas’s candidates across Europe, as revealed in this paper yesterday. The centre stated: "Libertas is running some 600 candidates in over 20 of the elections in the 27 member states. Some of those standing are known αnтι-ѕємιтєs, homophobes and anti-migrant racists."
Libertas responded yesterday when claiming in a statement issued at around 3.20pm that the centre’s comments represented a "smear".
"In 2004, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre smeared the president of our country," Ms Simons, who’s standing for Libertas in Dublin, said. "They implied that by association, she was giving support to fascists. They are beneath contempt.
"The voters aren’t stupid. It was only ever a matter of time before the establishment got so desperate that they resorted to calling us nαzιs. The only surprise here is that we had to wait so long before they could find a willing idiot to come and say it."
But shortly after 5pm, Libertas founder Declan Ganley, who’s running as a candidate in Ireland North West, issued a very different statement.
"Libertas leader Declan Ganley today announced that the Libertas pan-European movement will ally itself with the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in a joint commitment to defend against and actively fight racism and anti-Semitism within the European Parliament and other European institutions," the statement said.
For many Irish SSPX folk, Ganley was the Messiah.
-
And the note on the Irish SSPX District website stating the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' is beyond discussion, we must accept the big lie story.
Fr Fabrice Loschi SSPX admonished me via email regarding revisionism.
-
The latest post by Mr. Lane about this issue:
.... not people in favour of a deal ... I'm a sedevacantist, so more against a deal than any "Resister" could possibly be, ...
As I noted above, he's not in favor of a deal. .....
I have not been following this in detail, but I am getting the impression that part of the problem is he is another who only focuses on deal or no deal. But to me the much more important facet of the Resistance is the liberal slide of the SSPX. It is true, "Accordista" is not a perfect term (again in part because it focuses only on a deal - not the main problem), but I think people have been using that term for lack of a better one.
I am inclined to agree with you here. Mr. Lane says that the issue is deeper than the "deal or no deal" aspect and would disagree that this is all he is focusing on. I'm not sure at all who is correct.
While some people do indeed write about liberalization in some sermons, my impression is that this is a small minority of priests. I don't see this when I am at the one SSPX parish I generally visit. The priest simply has not liberalized at all and, frankly, doesn't speak of the split. He is not part of the Resistance but I don't get the impression that he is in favor of a practical agreement with Rome either.
It seems that no one is the keeper of 100% of the truth on this matter. I just plain don't know though I am inclined to believe that the SSPX, whether it be those who support Menzingen or those who support the Resistance, are still Catholics. The ultimate goal of both parties is the same; only the tactics seem to differ. I am simply not knowledgeable enough to know with certainty who has the better tactics.
-
Mr. Lane was a member of both CathInfo and Ignis Ardens. Many of us are completely aware of his views regarding +Fellay and the current state of the SSPX. Please discontinue to bring him here; if we so desire, we can visit his forum and read his posts.
I agree completely...Lane has already received far too much attention, ten pages worth...is he really that significant? No, he is not.
-
I agree completely...Lane has already received far too much attention, ten pages worth...is he really that significant? No, he is not.
Need any help holding that ax while you grind it?
-
Mr. Lane was a member of both CathInfo and Ignis Ardens. Many of us are completely aware of his views regarding +Fellay and the current state of the SSPX. Please discontinue to bring him here; if we so desire, we can visit his forum and read his posts.
I agree completely...Lane has already received far too much attention, ten pages worth...is he really that significant? No, he is not.
You're right...I don't anyone who deserves to be "thrown under the bus " MORE than the Sup Gen..I'm tired of the folks who just want there "smells and bells " on Sunday and care about NOTHING else..
-
I agree completely...Lane has already received far too much attention, ten pages worth...is he really that significant? No, he is not.
Need any help holding that ax while you grind it?
No, not at all, I can hold it on my own. Now, how about you? Need any help pulling your head out of the sand?
-
No, not at all, I can hold it on my own.
Yeah, I bet you can.
Need any help pulling your head out of the sand?
No, I'm quite comfortable down here. Can't hear the sound of knives being shoved into backs.
-
No, not at all, I can hold it on my own.
Yeah, I bet you can.
Need any help pulling your head out of the sand?
No, I'm quite comfortable down here. Can't hear the sound of knives being shoved into backs.
Down where? Hell? Let me know when you tire of cheerleading for Lane.
-
Down where? Hell?
Feels like it, sometimes. This too shall pass.
:rahrah:
-
Down where? Hell?
Feels like it, sometimes. This too shall pass.
:rahrah:
I think I'll give you a thumbs up for that one...